After months of debate, California SB 610, intended to protect the rights of franchise owners, sits on the governor’s desk, awaiting signature. The editorial board of The Los Angeles Times has urged the governor to veto it, describing it as a measure that somehow simultaneously restates existing law and invites courts to re-write contracts for reasons of public policy. Others view the measure as pro-small business, since these businesses are likely the franchisees. Some see it as improving the ability of fast-food workers to negotiate for higher wages. Or perhaps it’s about brand standards and economic discrimination in lower income communities. It seems quite a burden of significance for some relatively straight forward legal language.

SB 610 limits what can be provided in the contract between the corporate parent (franchisor) and the local operator (franchisee) and it limits the franchisor’s rights on termination or non-renewal of a franchise. The significance of these limits has yet to play out, but it is not clear that it would necessarily lead to any of the consequences foreseen by proponents or opponents.

What SB 610 Changes

If signed by the governor, the following four things could no longer be included in the franchise agreement:

Neither party can require the other to waive the requirement of good faith and fair dealing. This requirement arguably already exists.

The franchisee cannot be prevented from joining or participating in an association of franchisees.

The contract may not prevent a franchisee from selling the franchise or an interest in it to someone else.

However, the agreement may require the franchisee to give notice to the franchisor and obtain the franchisor’s consent to the transfer.

In addition, the franchisor’s actions are limited in two ways:

A franchisor may not terminate a franchise agreement before the expiration of its term unless the franchisee breaches the agreement in substantial and material ways. This is a change from current law, which just requires “good cause,” and the occurrence of specified events. It appears to offer greater protections to franchisees.

If the franchisor terminates the franchise or does not consent to its sale, the franchisee may, at the franchisee’s choice, either be reinstated with damages, or paid the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets. This change also appears to expand the franchisee’s currently existing right to require the franchisor to repurchase salable inventory.

What Does This Mean for Franchisors?

It is not clear that, as feared, this would make it more difficult to terminate the franchise of an under-performing or substandard franchise. Those reasons would simply have to be cast as “substantial and material” breaches of the agreement. This suggests that franchise contracts will become far more specific in outlining economic and operating standards. It could become far more expensive for a franchisor to refuse a request to sell the franchise or an interest in it to another party. The franchisor could end up in a contractual relationship with an entity that it would not otherwise have chosen to do business with. It could, and probably will, be argued that this interferes with franchisor’s freedom of contract.

What Does This Mean for Franchisees?

It is not clear what a new-found freedom to associate with other franchisees would mean. Trade groups perform any number of roles, including the development of best practices, industry self-regulation and lobbying activities. It is clear, however, that these changes could be very meaningful in protecting the value of a franchisee’s investment in the franchise. The apparent relaxation of restrictions on the sale of the franchise turns it into a far more liquid asset. It would not be surprising to see more disputes about how to calculate the fair market value of a franchise. More litigation focusing on the meaning of “substantial and material breach,” or the circumstances under which a franchisor might reasonably refuse to consent to the sale of the franchise or interest may also be in the offing.

What Does It Mean for Workers?

The Service Employees International Union of California has supported the bill, as a measure for fairness for franchisees. Except for the fact that employees might find themselves negotiating more directly with owners of potentially more valuable franchises, it is not clear what effect it would have on wages. They seem unlikely to go down, but going up is far more dependent on overall economic conditions and changes in minimum wage laws.

What Does It Mean for Consumers?

Will the product or the service in fast-food restaurants and muffler shops suddenly get worse? It seems that concern about operating standards will simply shift from the franchisor to the franchisee. It is conceivable that this might lead to less standardization, although, that is not necessarily the same as a decline in quality. As with wage concerns, this seems more likely to be the product of economic conditions or managerial talent than contract provisions.

And so we wait, with bated breath, to see if Governor Jerry Brown will sign SB 610. Owning a franchise is often the first step for entrepreneurs. It can set a small businessperson up for bigger and better things, or it can flame out ignominiously. The law appears to tip the balance slightly in favor of the franchisee. Franchisors and, to a lesser extent, workers and consumers also have a stake in this, however.

Protect your business with an on demand legal team

Legally Sound | Smart Business covers the top business stories with a legal twist. Hosted by attorneys Nasir N. Pasha and Matt Staub of Pasha Law, Legally Sound | Smart Business is a podcast geared towards small business owners.

Listen to our Podcast!

Legally SoundSmart Business

A podcast covering business in the news with a legal twist by Pasha Law PC

Disclaimer and Legal Info:
INFORMATION HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. The opinions expressed in this web site represent only the opinions of the author(s) and are in no way intended as legal advice upon which you should rely. Every person’s situation is different and requires an attorney to review the situation personally with you. Any testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CREATED. This web site does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not created without a signed written retainer agreement. Do no rely on any information on this site as it may be outdated or inaccurate. Pasha Law PC practices law only in the States of California, Texas, and New York where authorized to practice and does not seek to represent anyone in any other jurisdiction. Attorney Nasir N. Pasha is responsible for this Advertisement. Testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. While we makes reasonable efforts to maintain accurate information on this web site, omissions or errors may occur. Essays or posts on this web site are provided only for general information and to communicate our personal comments. We specifically disclaim any liability resulting from use of any information contained on these web pages. The information you obtain from this site is not, nor is it intended to be legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is or can be formed. You should consult an attorney of your choice for legal advice specific to your own factual matter. Pasha Law PC or its attorneys are not Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization or no designation has been made by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization for a Certificate of Special Competence in the areas of business and/or corporate law and as otherwise described in this site.